Officer Safety and Wellness (OSW) Group Meeting Summary

Creating a Culture of 

Safety and Leadership

September 20, 2012
This project was supported by cooperative agreement number 2011-CK-WX-K023 awarded by the 

Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained 

herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the 

U.S. Department of Justice. References to specific agencies, companies, products, or services should not 

be considered an endorsement by the author(s) or the U.S. Department of Justice. Rather, the references 

are illustrations to supplement discussion of the issues. 

The Internet references cited in this publication were valid as of the date of this publication. Given that 

URLs and websites are in constant flux, neither the author(s) nor the COPS Office, Bureau of Justice 

Assistance, and Major City Chiefs Association can vouch for their current validity. 

Recommended citation:

Stephens, Darrel W., Mora L. Fiedler, and Steve Edwards. 2014. OSW Group Meeting Summary: 

Creating a Culture of Safety through Leadership, September 20, 2012. Washington, DC: Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services.

Published 2014

e031320558
Contents

Overview of the Officer Safety and Wellness Group.............................................................. 2

Introduction ........................................................................................................ 3

Initial remarks ..................................................................................................... 5

 Best Practices from the Private Sector............................................................................ 6

Selecting a Risk Management Model ............................................................................. 8

Model 1. Establishing the Mission.......................................................................... 10

Model 2. Applying Opposite Perspectives in Solving Problems........................................... 11

Model 3. Identifying Levels of Harms...................................................................... 12

Model 4. Approaching Harms through Operational Theory.............................................. 13

Model 5. Approaching Harms through Responsibility Identification .................................... 14

Creating a Culture of Safety...................................................................................... 17

Chiefs of Police Perspectives ............................................................................... 17

Research Perspectives ...................................................................................... 20

Street-Level Officer and Fraternal Order of Police Perspectives.......................................... 22

Discussion and Action Agenda .................................................................................. 23

Leadership .................................................................................................. 23

Policy ........................................................................................................ 24

Training ..................................................................................................... 24

Practice/Programs .......................................................................................... 25

Conclusion........................................................................................................ 25

Appendix A: OSW Group Meeting Agenda..................................................................... 26

Appendix B: OSW Group Meeting Attendees .................................................................. 28

COPS and BJA STAFF ...................................................................................... 29

References ........................................................................................................ 30

About BJA ........................................................................................................ 31

About the COPS Office .......................................................................................... 32
Overview of the Officer Safety and Wellness Group

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing 

Services (COPS Office) and Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) established the 

OSW Group to provide a national forum for conversations about how to 

reduce deaths and injuries of law enforcement officers. While the number 

of officers killed in the line of duty decreased in 2012, policing continues to 

face important issues in ensuring officer safety and wellness. 

Comprised of representatives from law enforcement agencies and associations, federal agencies, and the 

research community, the purpose of the OSW Group is to bring law enforcement thought leaders, criminal 

justice practitioners, and other colleagues together to share their broad perspectives on improving officer 

safety and wellness. Participants contribute information and ideas with the goal of enhancing subject-related 

products, tools, resources, and services available to the field. In addition, the group encourages the nation’s 

law enforcement agencies to adopt cultures of safety and wellness.

During the initial kick-off meeting held in July 2011, the OSW Group identified the 16 focus areas that 

would guide future meetings as well as the overall mission of the group (see sidebar). The following 16 areas 

were further defined and prioritized in the subsequent September 2011 meeting, also considered the first 

official meeting, after which the COPS Office produced 

a summary report (see Fiedler 2011): 

1. Injuries and death due to gunfire 

2. Premeditated and unprovoked ambush situations 

3. Rifle/long-gun threats/assault weapons 

4. Education and training 

5. Leadership and safety practices 

6. Emergency vehicle operation and safety 

7. Physical health (e.g., fatigue, alcohol, weight, 

and nutrition) 

8. Psychological health 

9. Foot pursuit safety 

10. Task force operations (federal and local) 

11. Offenders (behavior during incident and history) 

12. Court security 

13. Deployment strategies and communications 

technologies 

14. Maintaining good health 

15. Equipment 

16. Former military in law enforcement 

All meeting summary reports as well as information about future meeting topics are available on the COPS 

Office OSW Group web page: www.cops.usdoj.gov/Default.asp?Item=2603.

The OSW Group Mission

The OSW Group will contribute to the improvement of officer safety and wellness in the United 

States by convening a forum for thoughtful, 

proactive discussion and debate around relevant 

programs and policies within the law enforcement field. Information and insight gained and 

shared will help enhance programs, policies, and 

initiatives related to officer safety and wellness.

The OSW Group Goals

 To create an opportunity and environment 

for law enforcement organizations and 

researchers to collaborate on improving officer 

safety and wellness 

 To bring law enforcement organizations 

and researchers together quarterly to share 

knowledge and information about officer 

safety and wellness initiatives 

 To disseminate information and best practices 

to the field through the government and law 

enforcement organizational communications 

mechanisms 

2
3

Introduction

On September 20, 2012, the OSW Group convened its fifth meeting to discuss how leadership can create 

a culture of safety and what that culture means (to view the agenda, see Appendix A). Jane Ardern, 

manager of education and information services at WorkSafe, Inc., put forth one of the best definitions for 

organizational safety as one that “work[s] to protect people from job-related hazards and empower[s] them 

to advocate for the right to a safe and healthy workplace” (2011). Ardern defines a culture of safety as one 

that has “an organizational atmosphere where safety and health is understood and to be, and is accepted as, 

a high priority” (2012). Arden also identifies attitudes, environment, and systems as necessary factors to 

establish a culture of safety.

With this definition in mind, the OSW Group examined 

creating a culture of safety in police organizations from three 

perspectives: leadership, risk management, and safety research. 

Regarding the first, if attitudes, environments, and systems are 

important to create a culture of safety, then leadership, which 

influences all three, becomes the pinnacle of creating that 

culture. Leadership at all levels in a police organization must 

make both consistent messaging and modeling safety practices 

an agency’s number one priority. Private, public, and labor union 

practices described in this report (see “Best Practices from the 

Private Sector” on page 6) have demonstrated that leadership 

skills such as these have reduced the number of officer injuries 

and fatalities. 

During the September meeting, the OSW Group heard how 

effective leadership can create a culture of safety from Mark 

Brien, safety manager, and Greg Melton, feeder driver and 

safety committee from the United Parcel Services (UPS); 

Daniel Alexander, chief of police of the Boca Raton (Florida) 

Police Department; David Rohrer, chief of police of the Fairfax 

County (Virginia) Police Department; and Robert Cherry, 

detective of the Baltimore (Maryland) Police Department and president of the Baltimore Fraternal Order 

of Police. 

Regarding the second perspective, risk management, police executives should proactively collect and 

analyze data regarding safety issues and form effective solutions to reduce officer injuries and fatalities. 

While some local governments provide agencies with risk management assistance, law enforcement should 

consider incorporating a risk management unit directly within agencies, thus enabling them to monitor and 

update policies, training, and practices to ensure safety protocols are understood and operational. Malcolm 

Sparrow, Ph.D., professor at the Malcolm Weiner Center for Social Policy, Harvard University, presented 

several models for agencies to consider when assessing harm reduction and risk management. These models 

provide effective approaches in identifying and analyzing the most relevant problems to reduce or eliminate 

the harms creating unsafe conditions.

For the third perspective, Adriane Quigley, captain of the Arlington Count (Virginia) Police Department, 

and Alexander Eastman, lieutenant and deputy medical director of the Dallas (Texas) Police Department, 

briefed the OSW Group on their experiences and knowledge of creating a culture of safety based on past 

research studies. Captain Quigley presented statistics that she collected on police officer injuries, and 

Creating a Safety Culture

Organizations with a good safety culture 

have a number of factors in place:

 Commitment exists at all levels.

 Safety and health are treated as an 

investment not a cost.

 Safety and health is part of continuous 

improvement.

 Training and information is provided for 

everyone.

 A system for workplace analysis and hazard 

prevention and control is in place.

 The environment in which people work is 

blame free.

 The organization celebrates successes.

Source: Ardern 2012
4

Dr. Eastman discussed practical changes agencies can make now to create a culture of safety. Captain 

Quigley and 

Dr. Eastman are also working with the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) and BJA in 

officer safety and wellness research.

Consistent with the OSW Group’s mission, the group dedicated the latter half of the day to obtaining 

participants’ recommendations based upon their skills, knowledge, and expertise for developing a culture 

of safety by asking them to answer the following questions in terms of organizational leadership, policy, 

training, and best practices and programs:

 Leadership: What is the role of the chief executive and the management team, of employee organizations, 

and of individual employees in developing a culture of safety?

 Policy: What policies should guide law enforcement in creating a culture of safety? 

 Training: What type of training is needed? 

 Practice/Programs: What specific practices or programs should departments have to help create 

a safety culture? What mechanisms do departments need to identify, to develop, and to establish 

responses to safety issues? 

The following sections of this report provide a summary of the September 2012 meeting and describe 

the areas the OSW Group believes are important to creating a culture of safety in law enforcement 

agencies, based on the presentations and participants’ discussions regarding leadership, policy, training, 

and practice and programs. 
5

Initial remarks 

Bernard K. Melekian, then director of the COPS Office, Denise O’Donnell, director of BJA, and Craig Floyd, 

chief executive officer of the National Law Enforcement Officer Memorial Fund (NLEOMF), welcomed the 

OSW Group to the September 2012 meeting and expressed appreciation for the group’s work. 

Mr. Melekian and Director O’Donnell shared their belief that the OSW Group has contributed to an 

increased awareness of officer safety issues over the past year, and Mr. Floyd stated that the mid-year 

NLEOMF report reveals that 53 officers were killed in the first half of 2012, a 56% reduction compared 

with the 94 officers killed within the same time frame in 2011 and the lowest number of officer deaths 

in 52 years (NLEOMF 2012). Director O’Donnell also challenged the group to look at private sector 

approaches to creating a culture of safety because that sector has researched and invested in mitigating 

injury and fatality risks. The law enforcement field could benefit from the private sector’s lessons and 

approaches in safety strategies and risk management.

After the initial remarks, Bascom “Dit” Talley, the OSW Group facilitator, asked participants to think about 

what creating a culture of safety means. He then asked participants to introduce themselves and respond 

to one of two questions: In developing a culture of safety, what is the most important aspect, or what is its 

greatest impediment? Table 1 lists a summary of the participants’ responses.

Table 1. Important aspects of and impediments to creating a culture of safety

Most Important Aspects Greatest Impediments

 Demonstrating leadership at all levels (e.g., 

modeling behavior and ensuring consistent safety 

practices)

 Supervising to reinforce safety is practiced 

every day

 Empowering supervisors to hold officers 

accountable to performing a high standard 

of safety

 Holding oneself, at the officer level, accountable 

for consistent safety practices 

 Collaborating with unions to endorse and place 

officer safety as the number one priority

 Sharing lessons learned internally and externally 

to enhance safety practices

 Starting safety practices training with academy 

recruits immediately

 Mandating ongoing safety education and training 

on equipment operations and in 

tactical maneuvers

 Taking full advantage of technology (e.g., 

encouraging officers to wear body armor due to 

technical advances in developing lighter weight 

vest materials) 

 Making safety a high priority through consistent 

messaging and practices

 Lacking organizational or bargaining 

unit leadership

 Overcoming current law enforcement culture 

that traditionally resists change

 Holding every rank accountable for safety 

 Underfunding as an obstacle to training

 Lacking ongoing analysis for the purpose of 

understanding safety issues (e.g., collecting and 

analyzing data and debriefing incidents to improve 

safety in the future) 

 Believing that injuries and deaths are the risks of 

policing instead of thinking that constant safety 

practices can reduce or eliminate them

 Not ensuring chiefs and elected and appointed 

officials are committed to a culture of law 

enforcement safety before taking office

 Providing inconsistent field training 

 Understanding the process of cultural change and 

that it takes time to establish it as a standard of 

operation 

 Lacking trust between command staff and officers 

to create cultural change effectively

 Managing competing interests and priorities 

in terms of keeping officer safety training and 

messaging priorities
6

 Best Practices from the Private Sector

Mark Brien, Safety Manager, and Greg Melton, Burtonsville Feeder Driver and Safety 

Committee Member, United Parcel Services 

The private sector makes investing in systems improvement a priority because these private companies 

understand it affects their financial solvency and employee satisfaction. Successful companies such as the 

United Parcel Service (UPS) consistently analyze their work processes and systems to achieve a higher 

rate of performance that increases their position in the marketplace. These companies also view employee 

satisfaction and safety as important markers for gaging success. To ensure a quality work environment, the 

private sector provides employees with training opportunities, ensures employee and equipment safety, and 

establishes high employee morale and support as a means of retaining its workforce. This investment is an 

ongoing commitment to creating and supporting a culture of safety and shows employees it is a top priority 

for the organization. 

UPS knows safety education and training is paramount in its business of lifting, moving, driving, and flying 

packages around the world. According to Jayaram and colleagues (2012), UPS moves 15.6 million packages a 

day, which is equivalent to 6% of the United States’ daily Gross Domestic Product. UPS has “1,800 operating 

facilities, approximately 100,000 vehicles (including more than 2,000 alternative-fuel vehicles), and more 

than 230 UPS-owned and 294-chartered airplanes” (Jayaram et al. 2012). There are 400,000 employees and 

7 million daily UPS customers. Due to the nature of UPS’s work, minimizing and eliminating the chances of 

injuries and fatalities are high priorities.

Mark Brien, a UPS safety manager, and Greg Melton, a UPS feeder driver and safety committee member 

in Burtonsville, Maryland, gave a presentation to the OSW Group on their organization’s comprehensive 

health and safety practices. In 1995, due to inordinately high rates of injury cases claimed in the State of 

Maine, legislative reforms restricting worker’s benefits put pressure on insurance companies to almost stop 

offering workers compensation insurance (Jayaram et al. 2012). In response to this crisis, UPS developed 

the Comprehensive Health and Safety Process (CHSP), which Brien described as an “all-encompassing 

system to prevent and eliminate injuries and auto accidents through development of workplace health 

and safety processes that is employee led, with strong management commitment.” CHSP is considered a 

process instead of a program “because unlike programs that tend to start and stop, a process tends to evolve” 

(Jayaram et al. 2012).

When first establishing the principles of how CHSP would operate, UPS created a pyramid to reflect its view 

of the most effective way to create a culture of safety within the organization (see figure 1 on page 7). Some 

organizations believe that beginning with training employees on safety procedures and then following the 

training with implementing supporting structures for safety (e.g., hazard prevention and control, worksite 

analysis, management commitment, and employee involvement) will result in employees personally valuing 

safety as their number one priority and, therefore, they will practice the safety measures. UPS, however, 

inverted the pyramid, believing that creating cultural change begins with the employees first believing safety 

is important and a priority they each should practice.

UPS has established 3,600 CHSP committees around the world, each co-chaired by a manager and nonmanagement employee. As leaders for the UPS safety process, these committees meet monthly. They obtain 

information on injuries and loss from UPS’s insurance company and UPS worksite data, and through their 

analysis of that data, they develop an annual plan for addressing workplace safety issues (McMackin 2012). 

CHSP also includes outcome measurements built into it that clearly show UPS has achieved impressive 

results. For example, one outcome measurement, reduction in accident frequency, has declined by half in 

the number of vehicular accidents, regardless of severity, over the past eight years (see figure 2 on page 7). 
Figure 1. UPS Comprehensive Health and Safety Process (CHSP)

Personal value

Management commitment and employee involvement

Worksite analysis

Hazard prevention 

and control

Safety 

education 

and training

Source: Jayaram et al. 2012

Figure 2. Annual accident frequency at UPS

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

2003

18.2

2004

17.8

2005

17.0

2006

15.3

2007

NUMBER OF VEHICULAR ACCIDENTS PER 100,000

15.1

2008

13.3

2009

10.9

2010

10.3

2011

9.3

YEAR

Source: Brien and Melton 2012
8

In addition to the CHSP committees, UPS engages in a wide variety of other activities to reinforce its 

commitment to safety and wellness. For example, UPS conveys a safety education topic to all employees 

each month, for example, at staff meetings and via online messages. According to Brien, another important 

part of UPS’s culture of safety includes recognizing drivers who have gone 25 years without an accident 

through the Circle of Honor award, which more than 5,842 employees have received. Because UPS values 

employees’ efforts to practice safety at all times, those employees who choose to not embrace safety 

practices are consequently discharged from UPS employment. 

Brien believes CHSP is an appropriate model for law enforcement and can be easily replicated, helping law 

enforcement agencies to address safety issues, reduce accidents, and make safety an agency-wide priority. 

The motivation and values UPS employees place on taking individual responsibility for following safety 

measures demonstrates the effectiveness of this model. 

Law enforcement can also make use of CHSP’s many integral parts that ensure organizations’ commitment 

to safety, such as education, daily messaging, and employee recognition. Ultimately, leadership must make 

these strategies important agency-wide, leading employees by example and supporting fellow workers to 

be safe. 

Selecting a Risk Management Model 

Malcolm Sparrow, Professor, Practice of Public Management Program in Criminal Justice 

Policy and Management, Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy, Harvard University

Building upon the previous presentation by UPS, Professor Malcolm Sparrow gave a presentation titled 

“Practical Dilemmas and Design Choices in Risk Management,” which discussed different types of models 

that law enforcement leadership could apply when dealing with harm reduction and risk management 

in their agencies. In Malcolm Sparrow’s (2008) most recent book, The Character of Harms: Operational 

Challenges in Control, he urges the regulatory community (e.g., the risk management group) to “pick 

important problems and fix them.” While that sounds simple, Sparrow (2008) also acknowledges that

organizing around carefully selected and important pieces of a risk—rather than around traditional programmatic or functional tasks, or around core-high-volume operational processes—

is extraordinarily hard to do. Even if they manage to do it once for something special, many 

organizations have no place for such conduct within their routine operations. 

When designing a risk management program, analyzing the situation carefully to refine and define the 

problem(s) to address is important. Approaching risk analysis as one complex, interconnected system is too 

overwhelming and unrealistic. The challenge with any analysis is filtering out the areas to examine that are 

too broad or unrealistic. For example, financial limitations would impede an agency’s ability to implement 

solutions, such as purchasing the latest technology, to reduce harms or risks. Also, changes too great in 

scope, such as removing all guns from the street so officers do not get shot, incapacitate any efforts put forth 

by an agency. Therefore, the goal is to be able to target risks and harms effectively to affect the problems and 

to identify the appropriate solutions that will improve officer safety. 

Dictionary.com defines harm as a “physical injury or mental damage” or “moral injury,” and it defines risk 

as “exposure to the chance of injury or loss; a hazard or dangerous chance.” Sometimes, however, harms or 

risks fall into special categories in which they either appear only in particular contexts or, just the opposite, 

occur across multiple agencies. 
9

Types of harms or risks that occur in particular contexts include the following:

 High-level harms (e.g., terrorism) transcend the scope of existing control systems (e.g., policies and 

procedures).

 Slow-acting harms involve natural, biological, or physiological threats; unfortunately, because these 

harms are slow acting, the time intervals between determining causes, implementing interventions, 

and analyzing outcomes may take several decades.

Unfortunately, risk management’s control systems cannot effectively address these types of harms. For 

example, certain policies and procedures make conflict to some degree with the core purposes or culture 

of law enforcement. To be more specific, in a vehicle pursuit, a policy might deem that the sergeant or 

officer call off a chase if the risk may be too high; however, an officer may not want to stop because the 

goal is to catch perpetrators no matter what. 

Types of harms or risks that almost all agencies experience include the following: 

 Invisible harms occur when there are low rates of reporting when the bulk of the problem is invisible, 

and when the scope of the problem is uncertain.

 Harms involving conscious opponents becomes a dynamic game in which each side seeks to outsmart 

the other to take control of the situation and determine how to resolve the harm. 

 Catastrophic harms involve calamities but of very low frequency or probability, such as tornadoes 

and floods.

 Harms in equilibrium involve forces working to preserve the status quo and to counteract change, 

which some may perceive as small disturbances, trouble, or chaos.

 Performance-enhancing risks are improper or unlawful even though they enhance core aspects of an 

agency mission. 

The conversation of the OSW Group meeting focused particularly on the last type of risk and how 

sometimes an agency positively reinforces risk-taking behavior either by idolizing the risk taker, even 

though he or she could have gotten hurt, or by not holding the risk taker accountable, even though the 

risk violated policies and procedures. 

For example, an officer tracking a violent, high-profile crime suspect becomes engaged in an active shooter 

situation and takes the opportunity to apprehend the shooter in such a way that endangers the officer’s life 

and violates policy or procedure. The agency then acknowledges this “act of bravery” through an award, and 

the press gives accolades to the officer’s heroic actions in capturing the suspect. The fact that the officer took 

undue safety risks and violated policy or procedure is overlooked. 

Thus a cultural value forms that this is acceptable behavior even though it violates all safety principles. 

Officers see that high-risk behavior gets rewarded even if it could lead to an officer fatality, and subsequently 

they engage in high-risk, unsafe police practices. This cultural norm disrupts an agency’s efforts to create a 

culture of safety and makes managing risks difficult.

When risk taking enhances a performance, officers naturally pressure themselves to push closer and closer 

to the “edge” of risk taking until they push too far and the risk becomes a disaster. Agencies should not wait 

until this point before discouraging risk-taking behavior. 

When conducting risk analysis and management, agencies must be aware of the informal and unsafe norms 

that officer actions can form. High numbers indicate not only the unsafe or risk-taking behaviors employed 

by officers but also the policies and procedures followed and how the agency reinforces them. 
10

As part of his presentation, Sparrow introduced five models that can aid an agency in risk management. 

Depending upon how an agency defines, divides, distributes, and carries out the work of controlling harms 

(i.e., reducing or eliminating harms) will determine the best model for conducting analysis: 

Model 1. Establishing the Mission

The first model provides a straightforward method for managing risks by identifying the parameters of an 

agency’s risks or harms. Once achieved, agencies can then perform comprehensive risk analysis to identify 

solutions and establish a mission for reducing future harms and risks. 

For example, as figure 3 demonstrates, employees who take risks that lead to injury or death may be 

engaging in illegal or harmful activities. Risk management’s mission is to focus on both possibilities, not 

just one or the other, by examining past incidents or tracking trends of consistent behavior that resulted 

in injuries or deaths. Such comprehensive risk analysis leads to policies and parameters that establish 

acceptable behavior and that help ensure employee safety.

Although Sparrow originally developed this model for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

(OSHA), law enforcement can easily use the adapted version (see figure 3). Officers who view policies as 

obsolete, unreasonable, or nit-picky may violate them by engaging in harmful activities that could lead to an 

accident, such as running lights and sirens because an officer believes a call for service is critical, even after 

the sergeant has told the officer to stand down. 

By working with the private sector, Sparrow learned that agencies must look at all possible causes; otherwise, 

they risk missing factors that may have contributed to previous injuries or loss of life. For example, Sparrow 

learned from an OSHA employee that 10% of the organization’s injuries and deaths involved a violation of 

a rule or policy. If this percentage is average across other organizations, then a harm reduction strategy that 

relies on policy enforcement alone would leave 90% of injuries unanalyzed and unaddressed and create lost 

opportunities to further employee safety. 

Figure 3. Establishing the mission 

Risk analysis

 Identify solutions

 Establish mission

Harmful activities

 Unauthorized

 Mission-creep

 Ignoring sergeant’s 

 order to stand 

 down

Negative views 

of policies

 Obsolete

 Unreasonable

 Nit-picky

Source: Adapted from Sparrow 2012
11

Model 2. Applying Opposite Perspectives in Solving Problems

Opposing ways of thinking provide an opportunity for discussion, enabling agencies to look at situations 

from different perspectives and discover various ways to resolve the problems creating harms or risks. 

The chosen perspective will define how the agency will resolve those problems. When solving problems, 

understanding both sides, or perspectives, of the situation helps to identify the best responses. 

To help demonstrate how different perspectives could lead to different or combined solutions, Sparrow 

presented table 2 to the OSW Group. In this figure, the opposite of disease is health and wellness. While 

one perspective may choose to focus on treating the disease itself, another may choose to prevent it through 

wellness programs. However, a discussion between these two perspectives could lead to a combined solution 

that would help address the issue both proactively and reactively. 

This same approach can also benefit law enforcement. For example, after analyzing highway accidents, a 

law enforcement agency may suggest two different solutions: enforcement or prevention. With the first, an 

agency could attempt to reduce or eliminate vehicle crashes by enforcing the laws related to the contributing 

factors (e.g., speeding or seat belt use). With the second, agencies could focus on promoting highway safety 

or prevention through educational campaigns, driver training, and engineering changes. Each agency must 

decide for itself how much emphasis it will place on such solutions. For example, if an agency believes it 

already has an effective, evidence-based prevention campaign, then perhaps that agency will decide to place 

more emphasis on enforcement. 

When agencies apply this model, operational reality requires attention to both sides of an issue; however, 

only the risk management group can determine whether to split the attention 50/50 or to give greater 

emphasis to one or the other side.

Table 2. Using opposite views to solve problems

Perspective A Perspective B

corruption integrity

crime public safety

pollution environmental stewardship

ignorance education

disease health/wellness

highway accidents highway safety

poverty economic prosperity

discrimination equal opportunity
12

Model 3. Identifying Levels of Harms

In this model, an agency does not organize most risk control work around risk-concentric harms as 

described in Model 1; instead, an agency tries to resolve problems and eliminate risks by analyzing agency 

functions, processes, and structures. To achieve this, agencies identify harms according to their level of 

severity. As the hierarchy descends from the highest to the lowest level, the focus narrows to smaller, more 

specific harms (see table 3). 

Broad, level-one harms might be addressed nationally or internationally. For example, law enforcement may 

examine officer safety in terms of national statistics on officer deaths and injuries. Law enforcement may 

also focus on general theories that may compete at this level to define the risk or harm, such as establishing 

and maintaining leadership and developing and enforcing policies and procedures. 

The next level, considered high within the hierarchy, looks at specific harms that have escalated to a crisis. 

These types of problems are usually politically visible, and failure to control the crisis could be embarrassing 

to the law enforcement agency that should take action to reduce or eliminate the problem. For example, 

when officer brutality is taped and viewed on national television, the law enforcement agency should take 

immediate action to address the officer’s behavior and community concerns.

Table 3. Levels at which to define or address harms

Level Objective Comments

1. Highest

Broad categories of harm, 

addressed at the level of 

nations

 Macro-level analyses

 “General theories” complete at this level

 Lower level texture not visible from here

2. High

Specific harms that 

have escalated to 

crisis proportions

 Problem politically visible and urgent

 Failure to control would be embarrassing

 Combination sufficient to produce action

3. Medium Anything in between

 Small enough to be optional 

 Large enough to require organizational systems

 Many agencies lack any apparatus for this

4. Low

Problems small enough 

that highly motivated 

individuals or teams 

can address

 Preserve self-motivated volunteers

 Represent departures from normal practice

 Heralded as “innovations”

5. Lowest On specific incident, 

report, or case

 Handled through routine processes

 Unit of work is how workload is measured

 Harm not a collection of lower level harms

Source: Sparrow 2012
13

Level-three harms are the median of the high and low harms. They may be small enough that addressing 

them may be optional or large enough that developing organizational systems may be required. Typically, 

agencies focus on functions and processes to resolve these problems. For example, an agency may need 

to address an incident by updating a policy and procedure and also require additional officer training. 

Low, level-four harms are small enough for highly motivated individuals or teams who have volunteered 

to work on the problem to address them. The solution typically departs from normal practices and is 

innovative in resolving the problem. For example, while inspecting their arsenal of weapons, some officers 

discover some of the weapons might be unsafe. As a result, these officers take the initiative to develop a new 

system for checking weapons for safety risks, and they also discover this innovative system can be used for 

other types of safety inspections. 

Located at the bottom of the hierarchy, level-five harms are defined as narrow or single-problem specific. 

Law enforcement agencies typically resolve these types of problems through routine processes or 

establishing a workload measurement to assure compliance to reduce or eliminate the harm. For example, 

an agency may remind its officers at roll call to continue practicing particular safety measures as a result 

of an incident in which an officer got hurt. 

Assessing and resolving harms through a hierarchal approach offers a systematical approach based on 

agency functions, processes, and structures to resolve problems. This model is a straightforward approach 

to risk management and problem solving. 

Model 4. Approaching Harms through Operational Theory

When using the theory of operations, agencies can approach external harms or risks one of two ways. One 

approach would be to apply general theories (i.e., widespread concepts or philosophies)(see figure 4a). For 

example, with officer vehicle crashes (i.e., external, macro level), an agency could examine police culture 

toward and research on seat belt safety and analyze how these theories affect the agency (i.e., internal, macro 

level). In this case, national data shows that wearing seatbelts can save officers from injury or death. Then, 

through operations management, the agency could use this complied information (i.e., internal, macro 

level) to establish policies and accountability measures to ensure the agency’s officers wear seatbelts (i.e., 

internal, micro level). 

The second approach would be to parse the risk (see figure 4b). For this example, examining vehicle crashes 

(i.e., external, macro level) begins with analyzing them (i.e., parse the risk) according to type (i.e., external, 

micro level). Based on national data, vehicle crashes can occur while driving under emergency conditions, 

in early morning hours, or when officers are backing their vehicles. Analyzing these specific circumstances 

might then help produce a series of tailored-made solutions for the agency to implement (i.e., internal, 

micro level). 

Likewise, when examining a violent crime (i.e., external, macro level), an agency could analyze the crime 

(i.e., parse the risk) into individual categories such as rapes, assaults, or robberies (i.e., external, micro 

level). The agency could then further analyze each of those crimes in terms of specific locations, times, 

or suspects. 
14

Figure 4. Applying operational theory to address harms

Source: Adapted from Sparrow 2012

External, External, 

micro level macro level

Internal, 

macro level

Internal, 

micro level

Apply 

production 

and operations 

management

Apply

general

theory

External, 

macro level

External, 

micro level

Internal, 

macro level

Internal, 

micro level

Parse

the risk

Create

tailor-made

interventions

a

b

Model 5. Approaching Harms through Responsibility Identification

The fifth model presents four methods for risk management to identify who is responsible for risk 

identification, analysis and design, and implementation (see table 4 on page 15). 

Method 1 represents a top down approach in which the police chief is the regulator. The chief identifies 

a risk, such as too many officers responding to the same call, and delegates to his or her direct reports 

to analyze and design a plan to address the risk, which the delegates will report back to the chief for final 

approval. The outcome ends with new or improved policies, procedures, or training, which are then 

prescribed (i.e., mandated) to agency personnel. 

In Method 2, the regulators would identify the risk, and they could conduct the analysis if the delegated 

staff doesn’t. An example for using this method would be if an agency determined that significant increase 

in officers shot and seriously injured was due to officers not wearing body armor. A committee would 

convene to analyze why officers are not wearing their bullet-proof vests, and the analysis would reveal 

reasons such as they are too hot and, for some, do not fit appropriately. The committee would then develop 

a three-point strategy: 

 Develop and distribute a training bulletin on the virtues of wearing a bullet-proof vest. 

 Develop a zero tolerance for not wearing vests. 

 Bring bullet-proof vest vendors into the agency to evaluate vest fits. 
15

Table 4. Responsibility for risk identification, analysis and design, and implementation

Risk 

management

Method 1: 

Top-down 

regulated

Method 2: 

Committee 

regulated

Method 3: 

Selfregulated

Method 4: 

Industry

regulated

Regulators Chiefs of police A committee 

of chiefs, 

command staff, 

management, 

supervisors, 

or officers

Any internal 

police department 

personnel, 

committee, 

division, unit, etc.

Police 

associations (e.g., 

unions, police 

monitors, city 

attorney, or city 

risk management)

Regulators’ 

responsibilities

 Risk 

identification

 Risk 

identification

 Analysis 

and design

 Risk 

Identification

 Risk 

identification

 Analysis 

and design

 Implementation

Delegated staff Police executive 

staff and their 

respective chains 

of command

Appointed 

or voluntary 

members from 

police department

Police department 

committee, unit, 

division, etc.

Regulated 

industry members 

(e.g., union 

attorneys)

Delegated staff’s 

responsibility

 Analysis and 

design

 Implementation

 Analysis and 

design

 Implementation

 Risk 

identification

 Analysis 

and design

 Implementation

 Risk 

identification

 Analysis 

and design

 Implementation

Police 

departments’ 

strategies

Rule-based:

 Prescriptive

 Command and 

control 

 One size fits all

Autonomous 

behavior-based:

 Principles

 Performance

 Responsive

System-based:

 Approval 

 Periodic audits

 Detection and 

verification 

Rule-based:

 Performances

 Principles

 Detection and 

verification

 Command and 

control

 One size fits all 

Police 

departments’ 

mechanisms 

for monitoring 

strategies

 Directives

 Policies

 Procedures

 Training

 Performance 

evaluations

 Code of ethics

 Auditing teams

 Weekly, monthly, 

quarterly, annual 

reporting to 

superiors

 Contracts

 Policies

 Procedures

 Standards

 Performance 

evaluations

 Audits
16

Enforcing this safety and risk mitigation solution requires motivating officers so that they place self-value 

on wearing the vest (even when the weather is hot or the vest is uncomfortable). Wearing under armor 

should also appear on the officer’s annual performance evaluation to ensure compliance. Last, wearing 

armor not only saves one’s own life but also enhances fellow officers’ safety by enabling officers to provide 

backup in a shootout. 

Method 3 is one of self-regulation where the chiefs oversee the agency through various approval 

requirements, audits, and verification processes, but it is the responsibility of the officers in the agency 

to identify and analyze the risks and, based on their findings, design and implement the solutions upon 

command approval. 

For example, if officers working in the evidence room realize there is no process for determining how 

long evidence has been in storage and when evidence can be safely destroyed, the obvious risk is that 

evidentiary property may be accidently destroyed before a case has gone to trial. There is significant liability and responsibility for managing the property room and keeping evidence stored safely. As such, these 

officers could then identify a more efficient and effective method of cataloging evidence, which would 

include the initial dates of storage and scheduled dates for destroying property. Risk mitigation would 

then involve periodic audits, detection, and verification that evidence is properly stored and tracked, such 

as through auditing teams or the commander of the property room at a scheduled time (e.g., monthly, 

quarterly, or annually). 

In Method 4, police associations may identify the risk, conduct the analysis, and develop and implement risk 

mitigation plans. Associations that have an interest in the safety and well-being of officers include unions, 

police monitors, city attorneys, or city risk management groups. An example of industry-regulated risk 

management is a police union identifying increased officer injuries because of lack of fitness. The union 

would then negotiate during the annual contracting period for officer shift time to include physical fitness 

training. If successfully negotiated, the unions would monitor the agency for contract compliance. 

Creating a Culture of Safety

Chiefs of Police Perspectives 

Deal and Kennedy (1982) define organizational culture in its simplest form as “how things are done around 

here,” a statement often heard in the work environment. Based on a complex set of norms and values that 

may have developed over many years in an organization, it is not unusual to find a culture that continues to 

implement the same administrative and tactical policies and procedures because “that’s how they’ve been 

done.” However, because chief executive officers set organizational direction and priorities, they play a 

significant role in changing culture. As such, two police chiefs who implemented effective safety programs 

shared with the OSW Group how they developed cultures of safety within their agencies: 
17

Current safety and wellness practices

Daniel Alexander, Chief of Police, Boca Raton (Florida) Police Department

Located in Palm Beach County, Boca Raton is a city of about 85,000 people, and its police department 

(BRPD) has 198 sworn and 97 non-sworn personnel. For Chief Alexander, who was appointed in July 2006, 

officer safety has been a top priority from the start. 

At the OSW Group meeting, Chief Alexander talked about the BRPD’s current safety and wellness practices 

and its policies, emphasizing the importance of measurement, which is a key component of monitoring 

successful safety practices.

BRPD’s current safety practices include five components:

1. Fitness evaluation to ensure physical condition for duty. Officers participate in an annual fitness 

evaluation that includes measuring the percentage of body fat, absolute strength, muscular endurance, 

aerobic power, and flexibility. There is an established reasonable qualification level for each of these 

areas. Officers that fail to meet the qualifications are provided training and retesting until they meet the 

requirements.

2. Fitness maintenance to support physical health. The department allows officers to use three hours of 

work time per week to exercise and can utilize the department’s gym facilities in two locations in the city. 

3. Mandatory wearing of body armor to decrease fatalities through gunfire. BRPD has a policy that 

requires uniformed officers to wear their vests.

4. Employee assistance for transitioning veterans to community policing. This program ensures officer 

privacy and requires the following:

a. Any employee assigned to active military service for a period longer than six months shall, upon 

returning to the department:

i. Meet with his/her division commander who shall make available the provisions of this 

directive to the returning member, to include the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) and 

the Chaplain Program.

ii. Be assigned to a field training officer (FTO) for a minimum of three working days to reacquaint 

the employee to his/her job function.

iii. Include within the reintegration process a thorough review of all changes and additions to policy 

and procedures as documented in PowerDMS.

a. The FTO shall, upon determining that the employee is sufficiently retrained, forward a letter through 

the chain of command to the division commander, releasing the member to his/her assigned duties. 

4. Vehicle driving practices to increase driver safety. BRPD has adopted the “Below 100” principles, 

which are the result of a national program that challenges law enforcement to reduce the number of 

officer driving deaths to less than 100 annually; the last time driving deaths were less than 100 was in 

1944. Examples of “Below 100” principles that BRPD has emphasized include officers watching their 

speed and wearing their seat belts. Furthermore, BRPD has established policies and procedures for 

phones and other technology devices while vehicles are in motion. For example, the department has 

made Bluetooth devices available to employees while driving, and when their cars reach a designated 

speed, their computer screen goes blank. BRPD also offers a $1,200 cash bonus for no at-fault crashes. 
18

Alexander believes safety and wellness are important parts of ensuring world class police service is provided 

to the community. According to him, highly competent people who master the intellectual, physical, 

emotional, and spiritual dimensions of their being are in the best position to be effective police officers. 

With this in mind, when an agency is looking to create a culture of safety, Alexander recommends it 

consider the following: 

 Wellness and safety are critical to pursuing an agency’s vision and achieving its mission of public safety 

because, without them, the officer is unable to be out in the street, supporting his or her fellow officers 

and protecting the community.

 Embody, emphasize, and reemphasize safety principles on a consistent basis, such as those “Below 

100” identified:

– Exercise to stay fit to perform duties more effectively and to reduce or eliminate injuries.

– Eat right not only for maintaining appropriate weight for heart health and eliminating diabetes but 

also for energy. 

– Rest and sleeping well at night aid in weight reduction, improved alertness, better reaction times, 

and stress reduction.

– Slow down while driving to reduce the risk of car crashes, injuries, and fatalities.

– Buckle up the seat belt to improve the chances of not being injured or killed in a car accident.

– Wear armor. 

 Ensure training and employee development programs address all competencies related to wellness 

and safety. 

 Avoid fatigue while on duty by getting enough rest, sleep, and exercise as well as proper nutrition.

 If something matters, measure it because understanding what progress is being made, what is or is not 

working, and how to improve all aspects of safety practices based on data is important. 

Cultural change intensified after officer deaths

David Rohrer, Chief of Police, Fairfax County (Virginia) Police Department

FCPD serves a community of 1.1 million people in a suburban county of Washington, D.C. that is 395 

square miles. The department has 1359 sworn and 345 non-sworn employees (FCPD 2010). 

Chief Rohrer shared with the OSW Group how the agency’s commitment to developing a culture of safety 

intensified following an at-fault officer-involved vehicle crash in 2008 that resulted in a civilian fatality. In 

response to this incident, the department developed a special training program, but just as this training 

started, an FCPD officer died in a helicopter rescue training exercise. After this event, Rohrer suspended 

all training exercises, pending a review and revision of all relevant policies and procedures. Afterward, as 

a result of that revision, the command staff underwent a training session on safety and legal liability so 

that they could direct officers in future situations, using the new policies and procedures. 

After the success of these training exercises, a criminal justice academy evolved as the training facility 

for the Fairfax County Police Department, Sheriff ’s Office, and Fire Marshal’s Office as well as the police 

departments for the towns of Herndon and Vienna, Virginia. In March 2009, the Fairfax County Criminal 

Justice Academy contracted two experienced academic researchers to review the training curriculum for 

safety issues and offer recommendations for improvement beyond traffic-related incidents. 
19

After FCPD reviewed its policies and procedures and researchers reviewed the criminal justice academy’s 

training curriculum, the department enhanced its Safety Officer Program in 2009 by adding a full-time 

safety supervisor to oversee the part-time safety officers who were already trained to respond to situations 

requiring their special expertise. The supervisor began regularly disseminating information throughout the 

department about various concerns to heighten safety awareness and practices. 

During the OSW Group meeting, Rohrer also stressed that a 

culture of safety is about preventing not only deaths but also 

injuries. He believes the law enforcement profession accepts the 

notion that risk of injury is a part of the job, and that attitude gets 

in the way of officers taking appropriate steps to prevent them. 

Rohrer places the responsibility for safety on everyone in the 

department and expects senior officers to be positive mentors for 

younger officers. 

Furthermore, certain training activities create opportunities for 

injury, yet many academies continue practices that do not add 

value to the training experience. For example, Rohrer argued that 

exposing officers to the shock of an Electronic Control Weapon 

adds nothing to the lesson of deploying one and thus needlessly 

puts officers at risk for being injured. Consequently, FCPD 

stopped practices such as this several years ago. 

In addition, Rohrer believes police departments do not reinforce positive behavior and good safety practices through 

rewards. If departments rewarded officers for behaviors that 

demonstrated safety, such as wearing a seat belt, the department’s 

culture would eventually change to one in which safety became 

a priority.

The County Division of Risk Management tracked the success of 

FCPD’s Safety Officer Program and discovered a 29% reduction 

from 2009 to 2010 in the number of workers’ compensation claims. In addition, vehicle collision claims 

dropped 18% over the same period. The total number of safety-related claims in FY 2010 decreased 23.7% 

from FY 2009. The department has maintained these numbers at a favorable level since 2009 (John Kapinos, 

pers. comm.).

In 2011, FCPD reinforced developing a culture of safety by implementing the following safety initiatives: 

 Traffic enforcement: Enhanced policy and procedures around stationary speed enforcement following 

concerns about the safety of officers stepping into traffic lanes to stop vehicles

 Rewards for safety practices: Established a departmental safety award to recognize employees who made 

contributions to safe practices

 Equipment safety: Suspended the usage of one type of department-issued holster after the Criminal 

Justice Academy staff became aware of safety concerns and procured and issued a different, safer holster 

after reviewing the options available

“The FCPD’s Safety Officer 

Program is committed to 

the safety and wellness 

for all members of the 

agency. The goal is to 

ensure a culture of safety 

by providing the necessary 

guidance and support 

to help mitigate risk and 

prevent accidents from 

occurring.” 

— Fairfax County 

Police Department
20

 Seat belts: Developed and administered a campaign spearheaded by the Traffic Division to encourage 

officers to wear seat belts after two spot-check surveys revealed that 20% of officers were driving 

unbuckled 

 After-action reports: Formalized after-action reports from safety officers on scenes or exercises and 

established a log to report safety concerns, which supervisors then followed up on for further actions 

to increase safety

 Specialty safety units: Implemented upgraded safety procedures by various specialty units 

These changes in safety practices are a direct result of leadership and demonstrate how making safety the 

number one priority can create cultural change. Rohrer has demonstrated the leadership required to change 

culture through a commitment of resources and has reinforced the department’s safety expectations during 

his day-to-day work at the department. 

Research Perspectives 

Examining officers’ injuries in 16 agencies

Adrienne Quigley, Captain, Arlington County (Virginia) Police Department, and Fellow, 

International Association for Chiefs of Police

Captain Quigley recently completed a fellowship with the International Association of Chiefs of Police 

(IACP), working on its SafeShield initiative funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The initiative is 

dedicated to identifying problems and threats impacting officer safety and then finding solutions through 

policies, training, equipment, and uniforms. Quickley’s work examined law enforcement officers’ injuries 

in 16 agencies. 

Quigley shared with the OSW Group the following statistics that she collected on police officer injuries 

during her research for the SafeShield initiative:

 Based on established incidence rates, law enforcement officers 

sustain approximately 106,950 injuries per year, and of those 

injuries, only 15,000–16,000 are attributable to assault (U.S. 

Department of Labor 2011).

 An inactive law enforcement officer is 6.6 times more likely 

to develop coronary heart disease (Collingwood et al. 2011).

 Twenty percent of the average law enforcement agency’s 

workforce is responsible for 80% of the costs (Collingwood 

et al. 2011).

 The average cost of an in-service heart attack is between 

$400,000 and $700,000 (Smith and Tooker 2005).

 For every $1 invested in a fitness and wellness program, 

the return ranges from $2 to $5 in cost savings in worker’s 

compensation (Tooker and Cashwell 2008).

Based on Quigley’s research, OSW Group participants made the following recommendations for developing 

a culture of safety:

 Make injury mitigation a priority because being proactive translates to cost savings in terms of reduced 

workers’ compensation claims and time off for injuries.

 Adopt and enforce policies that keep officers safe (e.g., policies that address foot pursuits, wearing seat 

belts, and fatigue).

Examples of 

Injury Prevention

In Missouri, one department had a lot of 

ankle sprains, so the chief bought all the 

officers boots that support their ankles, and 

that mitigated all the injuries.

In New Jersey, officers sustained injuries 

during foot pursuits, so the chief changed 

the foot pursuit policy and immediately saw 

a reduction in these types of injuries and in 

workers compensation claims. 

– Captain Adrienne Quigley
21

 Provide officers with equipment and training (e.g., underarmor and proper procedures for foot pursuits) 

to reduce injuries.

 Recognize that a true culture of safety extends off duty because officers that practice safe driving, engage 

in exercise, and apply safety measures to all their personal activities demonstrate a value of safety that will 

carry over to their work. 

 Identify potential pitfalls and work to eliminate them. 

Quigley concluded that agencies that proactively address ways to lessen or eliminate the number of injuries 

will create a healthier organization, minimize risk of injuries, and reduce the costs for injured officers. 

Practical changes agencies can make now

Dr. Alexander Eastman, Lieutenant and Deputy Medical Director, 

Dallas (Texas) Police Department; Attending Surgeon, Parkland 

Memorial Hospital; and Assistant Professor of Surgery, University 

of Texas Southwestern Medical Center 

Dr. Eastman followed up Quigley’s presentation by discussing 

practical changes agencies can make now to create a culture 

of safety. He has been working on officer safety issues in his 

department and nationally for several years and has observed that 

the police need to focus much more on the issue of officer safety 

and wellness. Agencies should invest in collecting and analyzing 

data regarding officer deaths and injuries; otherwise, agencies 

cannot understand and work toward problem solving 

the underlying issues. 

Eastman also stated that the vocabulary law enforcement uses 

when describing incidents can sometimes downplay situations. For 

example, a motor vehicle crash is technically not an accident when, 

in reality, the driver disregarded a safety standard, thus electing to 

place him or herself and other drivers in danger, for example, by 

driving too fast for conditions, following too close, or not wearing 

a seat belt. Thus, accidents should be called collisions or crashes. 

Police should also consider exploring and implementing short-term 

strategies to prevent injuries and deaths due to vehicle crashes, 

such as installing detectors in police cars that send a signal to the 

steering wheel to lock until seat belts are engaged. 

When considering other strategies to prevent injuries and deaths, Eastman describes how police can learn 

from other industries. Hospitals, for example, have made significant improvements in their safety protocols. 

For example, at 8:00 a.m. every day, the entire leadership meets for what they call a safety huddle. Every 

safety issue identified in the previous 24 hours is written on a whiteboard, and within a 72-hour period, 

the leadership addresses each issue. The safety huddle concept can be easily adapted to law enforcement 

agencies. All units should have this process in place, meet frequently, and focus on both identifying and 

resolving safety issues. 

In conclusion, Eastman believes that agencies should proactively address safety concerns by collecting and 

analyzing data, changing agency vocabulary on safety violations, and adopting strategies from the private 

sector. These methods require little expense and could be implemented quickly in the short term. In the 

long term, agencies that practice this approach to safety convey it is the agency’s number one priority and 

will change the culture to one in which this behavior part of the job and not something that will eventually 

go away. 

“One of the biggest 

problems in making 

policing safer is that we 

have very little information 

on how officers are injured. 

We know how they get 

killed, and we have rough 

estimates that 110,000 

are hurt in a typical year, 

but we don’t have a good, 

detailed handle on the 

types and circumstances of 

those injuries.” 

— Dr. Alexander Eastman
22

Street-Level Officer and Fraternal Order of Police Perspectives

Robert Cherry, Detective, Baltimore (Maryland) Police Department, and President, 

Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police 

Finding and investing in ways to keep officers safe on the street should be of paramount interest to an agency. 

Those organizations that make reinforcing safe practices a daily priority provide a means for protecting officers 

in harm’s way. A culture of safety includes effectively training officers for action on the street by teaching them 

not only why they should wear a seat belt but also how best to engage in a foot pursuit, approach a parked car 

or group of people, or participate in protective tactical operations. Debriefing every situation when safety was 

compromised and determining strategies to stop the same mistakes from being repeated through updated policies 

and procedures, new practices, and continuous training are critical methods in creating a culture of safety. 

Furthermore, street officers must review the safety directives they 

have to practice and must ensure their fellow officers practice them 

as well. However, in the grand scheme of creating a culture of safety, 

officers at all levels must practice safety principals and make sure 

their fellow officers take safe measures while policing. 

Being both a veteran street officer and union president, Detective 

Robert Cherry also shared his perspective on developing a culture 

of safety with the OSW Group. Cherry, a 20-year veteran for the 

Baltimore Police Department (BPD), was elected president in October 

2008 of the Baltimore City Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Lodge 3, 

which represents 5,000 active and retired officers. He also served the 

FOP four years prior as the first and second vice-present. 

Cherry discussed how the FOP has partnered with the BPD to help 

create a culture of safety and provided two successful examples. First, 

Cherry, in his role as FOP president, worked with BPD’s management 

to ensure the vehicles that officers drive are safe through closer vehicle 

inspection and regular maintenance, an avenue not often considered 

in safety discussions. Second, the FOP worked on legislation such as 

the “Move Over” law to minimize the potential for officer injury and 

death while performing a vehicle stop at the side of the roadway. 

According to Cherry, police need a unified safety message to help 

change the culture in law enforcement, and this unified, effective 

message should be embraced by all police unions throughout the 

country. Furthermore, not only is the messaging important but also 

who is sending it. To help stress the importance of who delivers the message, Cherry referred to an op-ed 

piece Cass Sunstein (2012; emphasis added) wrote for the New York Times:

People tend to dismiss information that would falsify their convictions. But they may reconsider 

if the information comes from a source they cannot dismiss. People are most likely to find a source 

credible if they closely identify with it or begin in essential agreement with it. In such cases, their 

reaction is not, “how predictable and uninformative that someone like that would think something 

so evil and foolish,” but instead, “if someone like that disagrees with me, maybe I had better rethink.” 

Our initial convictions are more apt to be shaken if it’s not easy to dismiss the source as biased, 

confused, self-interested or simply mistaken. This is one reason that seemingly irrelevant 

characteristics, like appearance, or taste in food and drink, can have a big impact on credibility. 

Such characteristics can suggest that the validators are in fact surprising—that they are “like” the 

people to whom they are speaking. 

Lesson Learned

On May 19, 2006, two officers responded to a domestic disturbance. One officer 

who was speeding crashed into the other 

and killed him. 

To see the scene of the accident, and 

then to meet with the injured officer, 

the widow, and the kids.... There was 

no need for the officer to drive 70 mph 

when responding to the scene. 

Afterward, I learned the officer who sped 

had been in a number of accidents, but 

command wanted to keep him on the 

street, and the union wanted to defend 

the officer. 

I looked at myself; I realized I hadn’t been 

wearing my seat belt either. Sometimes 

you don’t think about the rules to stay 

safe. But the desire to change needs to 

come from the front lines. Ever since 

2006, I remind officers about the one 

who needlessly died in that crash.

– Detective Cherry 
23

Discussion and Action Agenda

A key mission and goal of the OSW Group is to share information and provide recommendations to 

the field that can help improve officer safety and wellness. To facilitate this, the OSW Group broke into 

four smaller groups, each to discuss specific questions about developing a culture of safety in the areas of 

leadership, policy, training, and practice/programs (see the introduction on page 3): 

Leadership 

What is the role of the chief executive and the management team in developing a culture of safety? 

 The chief and management team should create an environment where people are recognized / singled 

out for good safety practices. This can be as simple as awarding pins for several years of safe driving.

 They should set the standard and lead by example: e.g., the chief should wear vest when in uniform. 

Work to inspire a shared vision of safety throughout the organization.

 They should be aware of the danger of rewarding unsafe behavior: i.e., a heroic action that really was 

dangerous and could have gone terribly wrong, such as the misuse of a weapon.

 They should seek and explore novel ideas and policies from all levels in and external to the organization. 

Maintain a balance of institutional knowledge and outside thinking to create safety policies and establish 

a culture of safety.

 They should show city leaders the cost benefits of a safety committee. In Montgomery County, the 

chief has to present to the county executive what the agency is doing to reduce injuries and the costs 

of reducing injuries. 

 They should establish and support a safety committee that has the authority to review practices and make 

policy recommendations. They should also ensure the appropriate policies are developed and followed.

 Pursue the authority to reinvest savings from safety initiatives into additional safety programs. 

 They should set up systems for sharing model policies, such what as IACP has done. The systems and 

processes for creating a safety culture seem to be missing in policing. 

 They should keep honest reporting and getting “honest” data at the heart of a safety culture to inform a 

balanced risk approach. Ensure the organization learns from mistakes. 

What is the role of employee organizations in developing a culture of safety? 

 Unions and management should work together to pursue a common goal of promoting officer safety. 

Unions should consider issuing unified statements with management on safety issues.

 There needs to be trust among management, unions, and individual employees. 

 Unions should carefully evaluate their role in promoting safe practices.

 Unions should seek a balance between protecting the officer and ensuring officers follow safe procedures.

 First-line supervisors are generally union members; their role in ensuring safe practices is critical, and 

they should have the necessary authority to enforce policy. 

 Unions should work with management to implement disciplinary practices that focus on behavioral 

change rather than punishment.

 Unions should encourage officers to report safety issues to the department.

What is the role of individual employees in developing a culture of safety?

 Officers must set examples for others and encourage peers to follow best safety practices. 

 They must take personal responsibility for their safety and wellness.
24

 They should actively participate in debriefings and use the opportunity to learn and teach others.

 They should report safety issues to the organization. 

Policy 

What policies should guide law enforcement in creating a culture of safety? 

 Departments should establish debriefing policies, procedures, and standards to ensure the organization 

learns from and shares its experiences.

 Policies should be developed with the input and involvement of officers.

 Policies on seat belts and protective vests should be clear and observed.

 The IACP model policies are a good resource for agencies developing or updating a policy.

 Vehicle pursuits, foot pursuits, and dispatching to officer assist calls require clear policy. Policies should 

also be established on health and fitness.

 Policy should take in to account that policing is a high-risk job.

Training 

What type of training is needed? 

 Agencies need to offer simulation training; sophisticated training programs on vehicle operations and 

shooting situations are available and should be used.

 Supervisors and field training officers must reinforce the training that officers receive in the academy 

and through in-service programs.

 A training program should be developed that helps officers give and receive criticism. This would help 

officers deal with peers that fail to follow safety practices. 

 Training programs should be based on an analysis of injury patterns from the training environment to 

the field. 

 Departments should consider assigning driver trainers to officers that have been involved with vehicle 

crashes to provide coaching on safe driving techniques.

 Departments should evaluate special unit training (SWAT, Mounted, Motorcycle, etc.) to minimize 

injuries and ensure training is appropriate for the job.

 Departments should teach officers to ask questions; it’s okay for them to ask why something is being 

done so they can learn the lesson and keep others honest. Reporting an issue is their duty, so they need 

to have a complete understanding of the issue.

 Debriefing plans and peer review enable officers and agencies to learn from mistakes and make the 

process of learning honest for the development of policy and practice. Without debriefing plans, how 

do we manage discoverable information? Without peer review, how do we review lessons learned 

without consequences? 

 Analytical processes are important for debriefing, as having and displaying data help make the point. 

For example, workers’ compensation information should relevant data for analysis. Management should 

think in terms of cost benefit analysis when developing a culture of safety perspective.
25

Practice/Programs 

What specific practices or programs should departments have to help create a safety culture? What 

mechanisms do departments need to identify, to develop, and to establish responses to safety issues? 

 Departments need to establish and support safety committees, a safety officer program, and a risk 

management program.

 They need to create a safety campaign with consistent messages. 

 They should take advantage of roll call time to emphasize safety issues.

 A collision review board is needed to closely examine the circumstances that contributed to the crash 

and develop recommendations for prevention.

 Departments should create an environment that permits introspective assessments of programs, 

practices, and incidents.

 Checklists have been used effectively in aviation and medicine; they should be used in policing as well.

 The best way to learn is from mistakes and by realizing what may have happened. 

 Departments should visit the fire service website, www.firefighterclosecalls.com, to see how the fire 

service collects information, analyzes data, and reports on events where mistakes occurred to learn from 

those situations. The fire service collects information confidentially to prevent any punitive repercussions 

to the reporting firefighter. 

Conclusion

Creating a culture of safety and wellness is a challenging and long-term endeavor for law enforcement 

agencies. It requires an understanding of the full range of issues involved in officer deaths, injuries, and 

illnesses. A continuous process of analysis must be established that allows a department to look at a single 

event, such as an officer-involved shooting or vehicle crash, and a class of events, such as training injuries, 

so it can map out a course of action for minimizing the impact of the problem. Although a department must 

start somewhere and must establish priorities, a culture of safety and wellness requires that a department 

consider and pursue all avenues. 

During the September 2012 OSW Group meeting, Malcolm Sparrow offered several models to guide 

an organizations’ effort toward implementing a culture of safety and wellness. Chief David Rohrer and 

Dan Alexander also provided good examples of police executives who have made a commitment to safety 

and have made steady and impressive progress in reducing the number of officer injuries and deaths by 

reviewing and implementing policies and procedures that enhance officer safety. Detective Bob Cherry, 

an accomplished union leader, understands the importance of officers embracing safe practices and 

working with management as a team to reduce deaths and injuries. Finally, Dr. Alexander Eastman 

and Captain Adrienne Quigley made strong arguments for the importance of research and using a 

data-driven approach to guide decision making in this area. Based on these presentations, the OSW 

Group has included recommendations within this report that can help agencies that desire to create a 

culture of safety and wellness.
26

Appendix A: OSW Group Meeting Agenda

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

810 Seventh Street NW

Washington, DC 

Thursday, September 20, 2012

8:30 – 8:45 a.m. Participant Arrival

8:45 – 9:05 a.m. Welcome

by Bernard K. Melekian, then Director, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services

by Denise O’Donnell, J.D., Director, Bureau of Justice Assistance

by Craig Floyd, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, National Law Enforcement Officers 

Memorial Fund

Meeting Purpose

Presenter: Darrel Stephens, Executive Director, Major Cities Chiefs Association

9:05 – 9:45 a.m. Introduction of Participants

Facilitator: Bascom “Dit” Talley, Faculty Coordinator, Johns Hopkins University 

Participant comments on safety culture regarding:

 Most important aspect of developing a culture of safety

 Greatest impediment to developing a culture of safety

9:45 – 10:00 a.m. United Parcel Services: Creating a Culture of Safety

Presenters: Mark Brien, Safety Manager, and Greg Melton, Burtonsville Feeder Driver and 

Safety Committee Member

10:00 – 11:45 a.m. Adopting a Risk-Based Approach to Officer Safety

Presenter: Malcolm Sparrow, Professor of Practice of Public Management

Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management, Malcolm Wiener Center for Social 

Policy, Harvard University
27

11:45 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. Lunch (box lunch provided but paid for by participants)

12:30 – 1:15 p.m. Developing a Culture of Safety: Chiefs of Police Perspectives

Presenter: Chief David Rohrer, Fairfax County (Virginia) Police Department 

Presenter: Chief Daniel Alexander, Boca Raton (Florida) Police Department 

1:15 – 2:00 p.m. Developing a Culture of Safety: IACP and BJA Study

Presenter: Dr. Alexander Eastman, Dallas (Texas) Police Department

Presenter: Captain Adrienne Quigley, Arlington County (Virginia) Police Department 

2:00 – 2:25 p.m. Developing a Culture of Safety: Perspective from the Street

Presenter: Detective Robert Cherry, Baltimore (Maryland) Police Department, and 

President of the Fraternal Order of Police 

2:25 – 2:35 p.m. Break

2:35 – 3:55 p.m. Developing a Culture of Safety: Discussion and Action Agenda 

Participants will address the following issues in the context of vehicle operation, risk 

management and training:

 Leadership: What is the role of the chief executive and the management team, of 

employee organizations, and of individual employees in developing a culture of safety?

 Policy: What policies should guide law enforcement in creating a culture of safety? 

 Training: What type of training is needed?

 Practice/programs: What specific practices or programs should departments have to 

help create a safety culture? What mechanisms do departments need to identify, to develop, 

and to establish responses to safety issues?

Facilitator: Bascom “Dit” Talley, Faculty Coordinator, Johns Hopkins University 

3:55 – 4:00 p.m. Closing Comments 

by Darrel Stephens, Executive Director, Major City Chiefs Association

4:00 p.m. Adjourn
28

Appendix B: OSW Group Meeting Attendees

Joseph Akers

Executive Director

National Association of Black Law Enforcement 

Officers

Daniel C. Alexander

Chief of Police

Boca Raton (FL) Police Department

Mark Brien

Safety Manager

United Parcel Services

Patrick A. Burke

Assistant Chief of Police

Metropolitan (DC) Police Department

Pamela J. Cammarata

Associate Deputy Director

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Brett Chapman, Ph.D.

Social Science Analyst

National Institute of Justice

Robert Cherry

Detective 

Baltimore (MD) Police Department 

& President 

Baltimore City Fraternal Order 

of Police, Lodge 3

Nancy C. Demme

Captain

Training and Education Division

Montgomery County (MD) 

Police Department

Alexander L. Eastman, M.D.

Lieutenant and Deputy Medical Director

Dallas (TX) Police Department

Joshua A. Ederheimer

Principal Deputy Director

Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services

Craig W. Floyd

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer

National Law Enforcement Officers 

Memorial Fund

Craig Fraser, Ph.D.

Director

Management Services

Police Executive Research Forum

Alan Goldberg

Commander (retired)

Montgomery County (VA) Police

Dave Goldberg

Lieutenant 

Assistant Commander of Special 

Operations Division

Fairfax County (VA) Police Department

Rachel Hedge

Director of Government Affairs 

National Association of Police Organizations 

Dennis Hyater

Program Manager

Commission on Accreditation for Law 

Enforcement Agencies

Nola Joyce

Chief Administrative Officer

Philadelphia (PA) Police Department

Matthew Klein

Commander

Metropolitan (DC) Police Department

David Klinger, Ph.D.

Associate Professor

University of Missouri at St. Louis

Albert Liebno

Deputy Director 

Training and Certification

Maryland Police and Correctional 

Training Commissions

Ron Malega, Ph.D.

Statistician

Prosecution and Adjudication 

Statistics Unit

Bureau of Justice Statistics
29

Leonard Matarese

Director

Research and Project Development

International City/County 

Management Association

Bernard K. Melekian

Director

Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services

Greg Melton

Feeder Driver and Safety Committee Member

United Parcel Services

Dan Merkle

Chief Executive Officer

Lexipol

Michael Miller

Detective 

Metropolitan (DC) Police Department 

Brian Montgomery

Physical Scientist 

National Institute of Justice

Denise O’Donnell, J.D.

Director 

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Mark Person

Commander

Training and Education Division 

Prince George’s County (MD) 

Police Department

Terrence Pierce

Captain

Director of Policy and Planning Division and 

Employee Health 

and Wellness Division

Montgomery County (MD) 

Police Department

Michael A. Pristoop

Chief of Police

Annapolis (MD) Police Department

Adrienne Quigley

Captain

Arlington County (VA) Police Department 

Timothy M. Richardson

Senior Legislative Liaison

National Fraternal Order of Police 

David Rohrer

Chief of Police

Fairfax County (VA) Police Department

Malcolm Sparrow, Ph.D.

Professor of Practice of Public Policy

Harvard University

Darrel Stephens

Executive Director

Major Cities Chiefs Association

Bascom “Dit” Talley

Faculty Coordinator

Johns Hopkins University 

Erin Vermilye

SACOP Manager

International Association 

of Chiefs of Police

William J. Watkins

Lieutenant

Safety Officer

Metropolitan Nashville (TN) 

Police Department

COPS and BJA STAFF

Steven M. Edwards, Ph.D.

Senior Policy Advisor

Bureau of Justice Assistance

Mora L. Fiedler

Senior Social Science Analyst

Office of Community Oriented 

Policing Services

Deborah Meader

Policy Advisor 

Bureau of Justice Assistance
30

References

Ardern, Jane. 2012. Creating a Safety Culture. Government of Western Australia, Department of Commerce, 

WorkSafe. www.commerce.wa.gov.au/Worksafe/PDF/Forums/safety_culture-Jane_.pdf. 

Below 100. 2011. “Below 100 Frequently Asked Questions.” http://below100.com/below-100-frequentlyasked-questions/.

Brien, Mark, and Greg Melton. 2012. “United Parcel Services: Creating a Culture of Safety.” Presentation 

given at the OSW Group meeting, Washington, D.C., September 20.

Collingwood, Thomas R., et al. 1998. “Why Officers Need to Be Fit.” Fit Force Administrators Guide. 

Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics. 

Deal, Terrance, and Kennedy, Allan. 1982. Corporate Cultures. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

FCPD (Fairfax County Police Department). 2010. Annual Report. Fairfax, VA: Fairfax County Police 

Department.

———. 2012. Safety Officer Program SOP: 10-038. Fairfax, VA: Fairfax County Police Department.

Fiedler, Mora L. 2011. Officer Safety and Wellness: An Overview of the Issues. Washington, DC: Office of 

Community Oriented Policing Services. www.cops.usdoj.gov/pdf/OSWG/e091120401-OSWGReport.pdf.

Jayaram, Jayanth, Jeff Smith, Sunny Park, and Dan McMackin. 2012. “A Framework for Safety Excellence: 

Lessons from UPS.” Supply Chain Management Review, January/February. www.scmr.com/article/A_

Framework_for_Safety_Excellence_Lessons_from_UPS/.

McMackin, Dan. 2012. UPS CHSP Committees Fact Sheet. UPS, July 20, 2012. 

NLEOMF (National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund). 2012. “Law Enforcement Officer Fatalities 

Reach 52-year Low in First Six Months of 2012.” In Law Enforcement Officer Deaths: Mid-Year 2012, 

Research Bulletin. Washington, DC: National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund. www.nleomf.

org/assets/pdfs/reports/2012-Mid-Year-Report.pdf.

Sparrow, Malcolm. 2012. “Practical Dilemmas and Design Choices in Risk Management.” Presentation given 

at the OSW Group meeting, Washington, D.C., September 20.

Sparrow, Malcolm. 2000. The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risk, Solving Problems, and Managing 

Compliance. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. 

Sparrow, Malcolm. 2008. The Character of Harms: Operational Challenges in Control. Cambridge: Cambridge 

University Press. 

Smith, J.E. Jr., and G. Gregory Tooker. 2005. “Health and Fitness in Law Enforcement: A Voluntary Model 

Program Response to a Critical Issue.” CALEA Update 87. 

Sunstein, Cass R. 2012. “Breaking Up the Echo.” New York Times, September 17. www.nytimes.

com/2012/09/18/opinion/balanced-news-reports-may-only-inflame.html?_r=0.

Tooker, G. Gregory, and David D. Cashwell. 2008. “Revisiting the Fitness and Health in Law Enforcement 

Model Program.” CALEA Update 96.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. “Incidence Rate of Nonfatal Injuries and 

Illnesses per 100 Full-Time Workers, Selected State and Local Government Industries, 2008.” TED: The 

Editors Desk, March 3. www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2011/ted_20110303_data.htm. 

Worksafe, Inc. 2011. “Worksafe: Safety, Health, and Justice for Workers.” http://worksafe.org/.
31

About BJA

The Bureau of Justice Assistance’s (BJA) mission is to provide leadership and services in grant 

administration and criminal justice policy development to support local, state, and tribal justice strategies 

to achieve safer communities. 

BJA has four primary components: the Policy Office, Programs Office, Planning Office, and Public Safety 

Officers’ Benefits Program Office. The Policy Office provides national leadership in criminal justice 

policy, training, and technical assistance to further the administration of justice. It also acts as a liaison to 

national organizations that partner with BJA to drive policy and help disseminate information on promising 

practices. The Programs Office coordinates and administers state and local grant programs and acts as 

BJA’s direct line of communication to state, local, territorial, and tribal governments by providing assistance 

and coordinating resources. The Planning Office coordinates the planning, communications, and budget 

formulation and execution; provides overall BJA-wide coordination; and supports streamlining efforts. 

The Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program Office provides death and education benefits to survivors of 

fallen law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other first responders and disability benefits to officers 

catastrophically injured in the line of duty.

BJA’s overall goals are to (1) reduce and prevent crime, violence, and drug abuse and (2) improve the 

functioning of the criminal justice system. To achieve these goals, BJA programs emphasize enhanced 

coordination and cooperation of federal, state, and local efforts. BJA’s objectives in support of these goals 

are to:

 Encourage the development and implementation of comprehensive strategies to reduce and prevent 

crime and violence 

 Encourage the active participation of community organizations and citizens in efforts to prevent crime, 

drug abuse, and violence 

 Provide training and technical assistance in support of efforts to prevent crime, drug abuse, and violence 

at the national, state, and local levels 

 Reduce the availability of illegal weapons and develop strategies to address violence in our communities 

 Enhance the capacity of law enforcement agencies to reduce crime 

 Improve the effectiveness and efficiency of all aspects of the adjudication process, including indigent 

defense services 

 Assist states in freeing prison space for serious and violent offenders through the design and 

implementation of effective correctional options for nonviolent offenders 

 Enhance the ability of criminal justice agencies to access and use new information technologies 

 Encourage and support evaluation of the effectiveness of funded programs and dissemination 

of program results
32

About the COPS Office

The Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) is the component of the 

U.S. Department of Justice responsible for advancing the practice of community policing by the nation’s 

state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies through information and grant resources. 

Community policing is a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use 

of partnerships and problem-solving techniques, to proactively address the immediate conditions that give 

rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime. 

Rather than simply responding to crimes once they have been committed, community policing concentrates 

on preventing crime and eliminating the atmosphere of fear it creates. Earning the trust of the community 

and making those individuals stakeholders in their own safety enables law enforcement to better understand 

and address both the needs of the community and the factors that contribute to crime.

The COPS Office awards grants to state, local, territory, and tribal law enforcement agencies to hire and 

train community policing professionals, acquire and deploy cutting-edge crime fighting technologies, and 

develop and test innovative policing strategies. COPS Office funding also provides training and technical 

assistance to community members and local government leaders and all levels of law enforcement. 

The COPS Office has produced and compiled a broad range of information resources that can help law 

enforcement better address specific crime and operational issues, and help community leaders better 

understand how to work cooperatively with their law enforcement agency to reduce crime.

 Since 1994, the COPS Office has invested more than $14 billion to add community policing officers to 

the nation’s streets, enhance crime fighting technology, support crime prevention initiatives, and provide 

training and technical assistance to help advance community policing. 

 To date, the COPS Office has funded approximately 125,000 additional officers to more than 13,000 of 

the nation’s 18,000 law enforcement agencies across the country in small and large jurisdictions alike.

 Nearly 700,000 law enforcement personnel, community members, and government leaders have been 

trained through COPS Office-funded training organizations.

 To date, the COPS Office has distributed more than 8.57 million topic-specific publications, training 

curricula, white papers, and resource CDs. 

COPS Office resources, covering a wide breadth of community policing topics—from school and 

campus safety to gang violence—are available, at no cost, through its online Resource Center at 

www.cops.usdoj.gov. This easy-to-navigate website is also the grant application portal, providing 

access to online application forms.